Donald Trump’s desire to end the war in Ukraine might be sincere, but his motives are selfish. He wants the glory of having brokered a deal and does not care whether it is fair or not. As for Vladimir Putin, he only wants peace on terms that achieve things which the Russian army has failed to manage with force. The Kremlin demands territory not yet won on the battlefield and limitations to Ukraine’s capacity to act as a fully sovereign state.
Mr Trump has never shown much natural aversion to giving Mr Putin what he wants. He has not applied serious pressure on the Kremlin to end its aggression, nor rebuked the Russian president for starting the war. He sees nothing wrong with a process that discusses the fate of a country, including de facto partition of its territory, without representatives of that country at the table.
If Ukraine’s interests are factored into White House thinking at all, it is down to assiduous diplomacy by its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and his European allies. Their interventions have so far prevented Mr Trump selling Kyiv out completely, much to the Kremlin’s frustration. This week’s trip to Moscow by the White House envoy, Steve Witkoff – usually a credulous audience for Russian negotiators – produced no breakthrough. Mr Putin attributes the impasse to “sabotage” of the process by Nato’s European members. He treats any recognition of Ukrainian interests as an attack on Russian national dignity.
Russian propaganda often singles Britain out as a villain in this regard – something that Sir Keir Starmer should take as a compliment in recognition of his service to the cause of Ukrainian self-defence. The prime minister deserves credit for his part in the combined European effort to counteract White House pandering to Mr Putin and for his leading role in coordinating a “coalition of the willing” to show unwavering solidarity with Mr Zelenskyy.
Correcting Mr Trump’s pro-Russian biases is a sisyphean task. The diplomatic effort must be constantly sustained. Meanwhile, European leaders must always be attentive to their duty to build autonomous capacity to protect the continent. On that front, Sir Keir is less consistent. He has agreed a European defence and security agreement in principle and, in recent weeks, he has spoken with growing conviction about the need for closer EU cooperation. In practice, the rapprochement has stalled, in part for want of political impetus from Downing Street.
In a speech earlier this week, the prime minister restated his insistence that there is no dilemma when it comes to relations with Europe and the US. That view is either naive or disingenuous. Mr Trump is not a reliable ally to Europe or anyone else. He sometimes speaks of the EU with undiluted hostility. His trade policy recognises no mutual strategic interests, only clients and enemies. That prejudice is not unique to the current president. It is embedded in Republican ideology. It would be unwise for any European country to bet its national interest on transatlantic partnership.
Mr Trump’s indulgence of Russian arguments over Ukraine is a warning. In an even bigger security crisis, could Washington be counted on to take Europe’s side against the Kremlin? That the answer is uncertain should compel Sir Keir to accelerate his claimed ambition of restored closeness to Europe. Vague aspirations must now urgently become concrete deals.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
